Not entirely sure how the turducken came into it. But, say you like did one, would you bone, fillet and stuff it yourself, or get the butcher to do it?
Boning a raw turkey? Surely, a job for a professional.
mmm bring on 48 hours of unlicensed surveillance.
I like Goff on 9 - noon: why has Key not been required to give evidence under oath?
Thanks Emma. Exactly what I needed.
why we do actually bother owning the thing
The Gvt established Maori TV precisely to let TVNZ (and its Gvt shareholder) off the hook to serve the same purpose: preserve & foster te reo, and thereby enable the sale of the asset.
But that was just a hurdle in the process initiated in the previous decade under Labour's SOE model, in which they split the broadcast function from funding. NZ on Air (aka The Broadcasting Commission) was tasked with "reflecting and developing NZ culture."
There was precious little public service broadcasting when it happened, and there's been less since.
But, nonetheless, that's why we bother to own it. Just that it's been completely stripped of any ability to serve that need. So, given that it's broken, do we flog it or fix it?
Apologies, skipped a few comments to see where it was up to. How did it get to the Greens?
Anyway, Richard, the Greens do a full review of every election, although - depending on the people who do it - it sometimes has an internal bias. But that's ok: they simply ask themselves the question, well, how did that go?
As for the connection between social justice and sustainability, they're the only party in the entire game with any concept of precisely that notion. Or do you side with right wing commentariat that they should get off economics and everything else that people care about and stick to their environmental knitting?
23% of registered voters exercised it on Saturday by not voting.
I asked the intern how she thought she might vote. She said she wan't going to, because she didn't know enough about the parties, so didn't want to vote for the wrong one. Sound reasoning. And all Labour needs to know, right there.
I directed her to various sources of info, which was easier this election than any previous. Then a few weeks later she was in the midst of registering and asked me, "so what's this Maori role thing about?" Try explaining that to someone with your head in the midst of a TVC pre-prod sched.
Immediately, you realise that you have to go into the difference between electorate MPs and list MPs. Which means you have to explain MMP, 5%, coat-tails, and all.
While it's tempting to question the intern's educators, that's not the point. For every educated, connected, motivated and well-supported intern, there must be legions of people who lack the opportunities to engage in the process. I believe the missing million is also the poorest million (does anyone have data on that ... Keith?).
Sure, make it compulsory. But the first party that connects with the missing million - regardless of voting rules - is going to be around for a while. Either because National pull off some kind of democratic monopoly (not as stupid as it sounds) or because Labour pull off the first swing to the left since 1950.
Like Winston you mean? Yeah, it's appealing, ain't it. I know that when National came in in 2008 everyone was queuing up to hang out with them. The Maori Party went ahead with it. The Greens look at that and don't see any reason to follow suit.
Since then, National has become a basket case from the Greens perspective. There's nothing much there they can work with. And so I believe them when they say, guys, it ain't gonna happen.
That said, I know for a fact there are national defectors who go Green but would never go Labour. But they have to know theyre defecting.
I'd like to agree. But I think Downbeat dan and Peter Cox are closer. Turnout was stronger than previous election. One party won by a ton. One party got hammered, and a million people stayed home.
Pretty obvious which party failed to motivate its voters.
Regarding point 5, coalition with Greens, interesting idea.
The Greens have everything Labour need: a progressive outlook (tax the rich); appeal among younger voters; and a philosophy which is widely shared across a range of economic and social strata: the environment is finite, and worth protecting. Labour's neo Marxism-on-a-good-day philosophy won't compete with that in the foreseeable.
Labour have clout history and experience.
Sometime, the Greens are just goings to have to run candidate campaigns: Metiria in Dn North, and possibly some other good folks in urban seats, and possibly Coromandel or somewhere (did I read they beat Labour in the PV in West Coast of all places?).
Perhaps Matthew Hooton would prefer the two parties have a cup of tea. But coalition would be far more effective. And fairer to both voters and candidates. And more aligned with the parties' own values. And maybe even demonstrable of a better, more LabourGreenish way of doing stuff.
In other words, Green cannot grow but at Labour's expense.
Such an obsequious line of enquiry. But explains the PM's total inability (and lack of interest) as an orator.